Dr. MAHMOOD SHAH SAYED Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Health Social Education
AJMAL MIAN, J.-- This petition is directed against the order dated 15-6 1986, passed by the respondent No. 2 withdrawing the Provisional Recognition Certificate obtained by the petitioner from the University of Dublin.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner is a graduate in Dental Surgery having passed his B.D.S. Examination m the year 1983 from the University of Sind, through Liaquat Medical College, Hyderabad and is registered as such under a Registration Certificate dated 5-9 1983. It appears that the petitioner proceeded for advance education and joined the University of Dublin for the course of Diploma in Dental Health i.e. D.D.H., which according to the petitioner he completed in the month of November 1981. After returning to Pakistan, he made an application to respondent No. 2, requesting them to recognise the above Diploma D.D.H. as equivalent to D.P.H. (Pakistan). The petitioner's above request was considered in a meeting of the Standing Recognition Committee of Respondent No. 2 held on 11-4-1985 and it was resolved to accord the above recognition. In consequence thereof the petitioner was issued a Certificate dated 22-5-1985 provisionally for a period of one year (Annxure `H' to the petition). Before the expiry of the above period of one year, respondent No. 2 sent a letter dated 1-10-1985 asking the petitioner to return the Registration Certificate for necessary correction. The above letter was replied to by the petitioner through his letter dated 10-10-1985. The above letters were followed by two or three letters and eventually the respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order without hearing the petitioner and without issuing any prior show-cause notice. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition.
3. In support of the above petition, Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakho, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged as follows:
(i) That since the competent authority after due deliberation had accorded the recognition to the petitioner's above D.D.H., no power remained with respondent No. 2 to withdraw the above recognition in the absence of any misrepresentation or any fraud committed by the petitioner.
(ii) That even otherwise, the petitioner was entitled to enjoy the certificate for a period of one year and the same could not have been revoked before the expiry of the above period without hearing the petitioner.
On the other hand Mr. Samiuddin Sami, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted as under:-
(i) That this Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction cannot hold an enquiry into the question whether D.D.H. should be accorded the status and equivalent to D.P.H. (Pakistan).
(ii) That since the Certificate was provisional, the respondent No. 2 had the power to revoke the same at any time and this was done so after due enquiry as to the nature of the studies involved in obtaining P.D.H.
4. In our view, for the purpose of disposal of the present petition, it will' suffice to deal with the second submission of the learned counsel for the parties, as we are not inclined to hold any enquiry as to the qualification of the petitioner. It is true that the certificate issued was provisional for a period of one year but at the same time it created some right and interest in favour of the petitioner, which right and interest should not have been taken away without issuing prior show cause notice and without hearing the petitioner, which was not done in the present case.
We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the impugned order is without lawful authority as it is being in violation of the principles of natural justice. B However, it appears that the period of one year has already expired and the petitioner had not surrendered the above certificate and, therefore, the only relief which we can grant in addition to the above declaration is that the respondent No. 2 shall consider the petitioner's application for renewal and will dispose of the same in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner.
The-petition is disposed of in the above terms, as well as the stay application, with no order as to costs.
AA./H-99/K. Order accordingly.